BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The degree of variation in retreatment decisions for residual or recurrent aneurysms among endovascular therapists remains poorly defined. We performed a multireader study to determine what reader and patient variables contribute to this variation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven endovascular therapists (4 neuroradiologists, 3 neurosurgeons) independently reviewed 66 cases of patients treated with endovascular coil embolization for ruptured or unruptured aneurysm. Cases were rated on a 5-point scale recommending for whether to retreat and a recommended retreatment type. Reader agreement was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient and by identifying cases with a "clinically meaningful difference" (a difference in score that would result in a difference in treatment). Variables that affect reader agreement and retreatment decisions were examined by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Pearson χ(2) test, and linear regression. RESULTS: Overall interobserver variability for decision to retreat was moderate (ICC = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.61). Clinically meaningful differences between at least 2 readers were present in 61% of cases and were significantly more common among neuroradiologists than neurosurgeons (P = .0007). Neurosurgeons were more likely to recommend "definitely retreat" than neuroradiologists (P < .0001). Previously ruptured aneurysms, larger remnant size, and younger patients were associated with more retreat recommendations. Interobserver variability regarding retreatment type was fair overall 0.25 (95% CI, 0.14-0.41) but poor for experienced readers 0.14 (95% CI, 0-0.34). CONCLUSIONS: There is a large amount of interobserver variability regarding the decision to retreat an aneurysm and the type of retreatment. This variability must be reduced to increase consistency in these subjective outcome measurements.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The degree of variation in retreatment decisions for residual or recurrent aneurysms among endovascular therapists remains poorly defined. We performed a multireader study to determine what reader and patient variables contribute to this variation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven endovascular therapists (4 neuroradiologists, 3 neurosurgeons) independently reviewed 66 cases of patients treated with endovascular coil embolization for ruptured or unruptured aneurysm. Cases were rated on a 5-point scale recommending for whether to retreat and a recommended retreatment type. Reader agreement was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient and by identifying cases with a "clinically meaningful difference" (a difference in score that would result in a difference in treatment). Variables that affect reader agreement and retreatment decisions were examined by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Pearson χ(2) test, and linear regression. RESULTS: Overall interobserver variability for decision to retreat was moderate (ICC = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.40-0.61). Clinically meaningful differences between at least 2 readers were present in 61% of cases and were significantly more common among neuroradiologists than neurosurgeons (P = .0007). Neurosurgeons were more likely to recommend "definitely retreat" than neuroradiologists (P < .0001). Previously ruptured aneurysms, larger remnant size, and younger patients were associated with more retreat recommendations. Interobserver variability regarding retreatment type was fair overall 0.25 (95% CI, 0.14-0.41) but poor for experienced readers 0.14 (95% CI, 0-0.34). CONCLUSIONS: There is a large amount of interobserver variability regarding the decision to retreat an aneurysm and the type of retreatment. This variability must be reduced to increase consistency in these subjective outcome measurements.
Authors: Philip M White; Stephanie C Lewis; Anil Gholkar; Robin J Sellar; Hans Nahser; Christophe Cognard; Lynn Forrester; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-05-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: W P Daugherty; A Ehteshami Rad; J B White; P M Meyers; G L Lanzino; H J Cloft; J Gordon; D F Kallmes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Andrew J Molyneux; Alison Clarke; Mary Sneade; Ziyah Mehta; Stuart Coley; Daniel Roy; David F Kallmes; Allan J Fox Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: M H Schönfeld; V Schlotfeldt; N D Forkert; E Goebell; M Groth; E Vettorazzi; Y D Cho; M H Han; H-S Kang; J Fiehler Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: A Rouchaud; W Brinjikji; Y-H Ding; D Dai; Y Q Zhu; H J Cloft; D F Kallmes; R Kadirvel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Thomas C Booth; Carmen Parra-Farinas; Ruth-Mary deSouza; Naga Kandasamy; Jo Bhattacharya; Prem Rangi; Jonathan Downer Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: A Rouchaud; W Brinjikji; T Gunderson; J Caroff; J-C Gentric; G Lanzino; H J Cloft; D F Kallmes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-11-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Benomar; B Farzin; G Gevry; W Boisseau; D Roy; A Weill; D Iancu; F Guilbert; L Létourneau-Guillon; G Jacquin; C Chaalala; M W Bojanowski; M Labidi; R Fahed; D Volders; T N Nguyen; J-C Gentric; E Magro; G Boulouis; G Forestier; J-F Hak; J S Ghostine; Z Kaderali; J J Shankar; M Kotowski; T E Darsaut; J Raymond Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.966